期刊文献+

ⅠC期卵巢癌新手术病理分期合理性的分析 被引量:1

The Rationality of the New Staging System for Ovarian Carcinoma StageⅠC
原文传递
导出
摘要 [目的]观察卵巢癌FIGO 2013新分期ⅠC期标准变化的合理性。[方法]选取113例ⅠC期卵巢癌病例,整理分析其术后病理资料和随访资料。将113例患者根据其病历资料按FIGO 2013新分期标准重新进行亚分期,分为ⅠC1、ⅠC2和ⅠC3期。从5年生存率及多因素分析两方面比较ⅠC期卵巢癌新分期变化的合理性。[结果]FIGO 1988年分期中ⅠC期卵巢癌5年生存率为82.4%;FIGO 2013年新分期中ⅠC1、ⅠC2和ⅠC3各亚期的5年生存率分别为92.1%、83.9%、79.5%,新分期各期的5年生存率差异无统计学意义(χ~2=2.881,P=0.237)。对肿瘤分期、年龄、初潮年龄、是否绝经、生育次数、病理学类型和组织学分级对预后的影响进行Cox回归分析,肿瘤分期、年龄、初潮年龄、是否绝经、生育次数、病理学类型并非影响预后的危险因素(P〉0.05);而组织学分级是ⅠC期卵巢癌预后的危险因素(OR=1.474,P=0.001)。[结论]新分期将ⅠC期卵巢癌分为各亚期后其5年生存率无明显差异;ⅠC亚分期并不是影响卵巢癌预后的独立因素,组织学分级是卵巢癌预后的危险因素。因此FIGO2013将ⅠC期卵巢癌为ⅠC1、ⅠC2、ⅠC3亚期,似乎并不能更好地评估预后。 [Objective] To evaluate the rationality of the reassignment of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics(FIGO) 2013 staging system for ovarian carcinoma stage Ⅰ C.[Methods] The clinical data in 113 patients with ovarian carcinoma stageⅠC were collected and sorted. Patients were categorized into stage ⅠC1, ⅠC2 and ⅠC3 according to FIGO 2013 staging system for ovarian carcinoma. The rationality of the substage was assessed through the 5-year survival rate estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and the multivariate analysis. [Results] The 5-year survival rate of stage ⅠC of FIGO 1988 staging system was 82.4%;and the 5-year survival rate of stage ⅠC1,ⅠC2 and ⅠC3 were 92.1%,83.9% and 79.5%,and the comparison of 5-year survival rate among these substages didn't show significant difference(χ~2=2.881,P=0.237).The Cox regression analysis model was used to analyze the influence of the operative pathological stage,age,age of menarche,menopause status,birth frequency,pathological type and histological grade on the prognosis. The operative pathological stage,age,age of menarche,menopause status,birth frequency,pathological type were not the risk factors for the prognosis of ovarian carcinoma stageⅠC(P0.05). Histological grade was an independent risk factor for the prognosis of ovarian carcinoma stageⅠC(OR=1.474,P=0.001). [Conclusion] There is no significant difference in the 5-year survival rate among the substages in the FIGO 2013 system for ovarian carcinoma stage ⅠC. The substage is not an independent factor for predicting the prognosis,but the histological grade is. It seems unreasonable in the FIGO 2013 system about the division of stage ⅠC ovarian carcinoma into stage ⅠC1,ⅠC2 and ⅠC3.
出处 《肿瘤学杂志》 CAS 2016年第7期538-542,共5页 Journal of Chinese Oncology
关键词 卵巢肿瘤 临床分期 组织学分级 生存率 ovarian neoplasms clinical staging histological grade survival rate
  • 相关文献

参考文献12

  • 1Kandukuri SR, Rao J. FIGO 2013 staging system for ovar- ian cancer:what is new in comparison to the 1988 staging system?[J]. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol,2015,27(1) :48-52.
  • 2NCCN. NCCN guidelines Version 2. 2015 [EB/OL]. http:// www. nccn. org/professionals/physician gls/pdf/ovarian .pdf.
  • 3Suh DH,Kim TH,Kim JW,et al. Improvements to the FI- GO staging for ovarian cancer:reconsideration of lymphat- ic spread and intraoperative tumor rupture [J]. J Gynecol 0ncol,2013,24(4) : 352-358.
  • 4沈铿.正确认识FIGO妇科肿瘤2009年新分期的修订及其意义[J].实用妇产科杂志,2011,27(6):402-403. 被引量:8
  • 5Bakkum-Gamez JN, Richardson DL, Seamon LG, et al. In- fluence of intraoperative capsule rupture on outcomes in stage ] epithelial ovarian cancer fJ]. Obstet Gynecol, 2009,113(1) : 11-17.
  • 6Vergote I, De Brabanter J,Fyles A,et al. Prognostic im- portance of degree of differentiation and cyst rupture in stage I invasive epithelial ovarian carcinoma [J]. Lancet, 2001,357(9251) : 176-182.
  • 7Kim HS,Ahn JH, Chung HH,et al. Impact of intraopera- tire rupture of the ovarian capsule on prognosis in pa- tients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer:a meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2013,39(3) : 279-289.
  • 8Paik ES, Lee YY, Lee E J, et al. Survival analysis of revised 2013 FIGO staging classification of epithelial ovarian can- cer and comparison with previous FIGO staging classifica- tion[J]. Obstet Gyneeol Sci, 2015,58(2) : 124-134.
  • 9Seidman JD, Yemelyanova AV, Khedmati F, et al. Prognos- tic factors for stage I ovarian carcinoma [J]. Int J Gynecol Pathol, 201 0, 29(1 ) : 1-7.
  • 10Seidman JD,Cosin JA,Wang BG,et al. Upstaging patho- logic stage I ovarian carcinoma based on dense adhesions is not warranted:a clinicopathologic study of 84 patients originally classified as FIGO stage Ⅱ [J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2010,119(2) : 250-254.

二级参考文献11

  • 1FIGO committee on gynecology oncology. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium[ J]. Int J Gynecol Obstet, 2009,105(2) : 103 - 111.
  • 2Hee SK, Yong SS. International Federation of GyneCology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system revised: what should be considered critically for gynecologic cancer [ J ]. J Gynecol Oncol, 2009, 3 : 135 - 136.
  • 3Hacker NF, Berek JS, Lagasse LD, et al. Management of regional lymph nodes and their prognostic influence in vulvar cancer[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 1983,6 : 408 -412.
  • 4Homesley HD, Bundy BN, Sedlis A, et al. Assessment of current International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging of vulvar carcinoma relative to prognostic factors for survival ( a gynecologic oncology group study) [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1991, 164: 997 - 1004.
  • 5Ofigoni M, Sideri M, Garsia S, et al. Prognostic value of pathological patterns of lymph node positivity in squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva stage Ⅲ and Ⅳ A FIGO [ J ]. Gynecol Oncol, 1992, 45 : 313 -316.
  • 6Piver MS, Chung WS. Prognostic significance of cervical lesion size and pelvic nodemetastases in cervical carcinoma [ J ]. Obstet Gynecol, 1975,46 : 507 - 510.
  • 7Delgado G, Bundy B, Zaino R, et al. Prospective surgicalpathological study of disease-free interval in patients with stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix [J]. Gynecol Oncol, 1990, 38:352 -357.
  • 8Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Chao KS, et al. Tumor size, irradiation dose, and long-term outcome of carcinoma of uterine cervix [ J ]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 1998,41:307 -317.
  • 9Horn LC, Fischer U, Raptis G, et al. Tumor size is of prognostic value in surgically treated FIGO stage Ⅱ cervical cancer[J]. Gynecol Oncol,2007,107:310 - 315.
  • 10Emanuela DA, Jaime P. Uterine sarcomas: a review [ J ]. Gynecol Oncol,2010,116:131 - 139.

共引文献7

同被引文献9

引证文献1

二级引证文献21

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部